All important provisions of UNCLOS for freedom of navigation rights provided by customary international law
With regard to freedom of movement: President Reagan’s 1983 Ocean Policy Statement stated that UNCLOS “contains provisions with respect to traditional uses of the oceans which generally confirm existing maritime law and practice . . ..”16 The International Court of Justice reached a similar conclusion in the 1984 Gulf of Maine case, albeit in the context of the continental shelf and EEZ articles, indicating that the Convention’s provisions were reflective of customary international law.17 In short, today, all of the important provisions of UNCLOS dealing with freedom of movement, such as the rights of innocent passage, transit passage, archipelagic sea lanes passage, and high seas freedoms seaward of the territorial sea, are considered by virtually all nations as a reflection of customary international law that is binding on all nations. Both our commercial shipping and military forces have exercised and enjoyed these rights for the past 25 years, during which time the United States has not been a party to UNCLOS. Clearly, the United States does not have to become a party to the Convention to exercise its navigational rights and freedoms worldwide. Iran is the only country that continues to maintain that the right of transit passage through the Strait of Hormuz applies only to State Parties to the Convention. What we need more than membership in another treaty is a coherent national policy that supports freedom of navigation and a strong Navy that can challenge excessive coastal state claims that purport to curtail our freedom of movement and restrict our access to the world’s oceans.
Quicktabs: Evidence
Arguments
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
-
U.S. security interests in the oceans have been adequately protected to date by current U.S. ocean policy and implementing strategy. U.S. reliance on arguments that customary international law, as articulated in the non-deep seabed mining provisions of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, and as supplemented by diplomatic protests and assertion of rights under the Freedom of Navigation Program, have served so far to preserve fundamental freedoms of navigation and overflight with acceptable risk, cost and effort.
Keywords:Related Quotes:- Empirically, UNCLOS has been no more effective than customary international law at reducing excessive claims and maritime conflict
- Even as a non-party to UNCLOS, US navigational rights have been protected for decades through customary international law
- Ratification of UNCLOS would trade existing stability provided by customary international law for rule by tribunals
- Customary international law already protects U.S. navigation rights
- ... and 4 more quote(s)
Parent Arguments: -
It is not essential or even necessary for the United States to accede to UNCLOS to benefit from the certainty and stability provided by its navigational provisions. Those provisions either codify customary international law that existed well before the convention was adopted in 1982 or “refine and elaborate” navigational rights that are now almost universally accepted as binding international law.
Keywords:Related Quotes:- US does not need to ratify UNCLOS to lock in freedom of navigation rights
- International law has been less effective at preventing nations from making excessive claims than U.S. naval supremacy
- U.S. does not need the Law of the Sea treaty to guarantee navigation rights
- US can enjoy all navigational freedoms ensured by UNCLOS without acceding to it
- ... and 7 more quote(s)
Parent Arguments:Supporting Arguments: